Next year will mark 40 years since the start of World Series Cricket, a two-year breakaway cricket competition run by Kerry Packer that featured most of the world’s best players at the time.
The cricket was arguably some of the fiercest ever played, with Supertests featuring Australia, the West Indies and a Rest of the World XI. However, because the Supertests weren’t sanctioned by the International Cricket Council (ICC), the runs, wickets and catches taken aren’t included in official Test records.
Last year, Cricket Australia officially recognised World Series Cricket records by creating a separate category for them. However, retrospectively incorporating these statistics in official Test records is a decision that could only be made by the ICC, and they have never shown any real inclination to do this.
Standout performers in World Series Cricket included Greg Chappell (1415 runs at 56.6), Viv Richards (1281 runs at 55.7), Barry Richards (554 runs at 79.14), Dennis Lillee (67 wickets at 26.87) and Andy Roberts (50 wickets at 24.14).
If WSC records were included in official records, the historical standing of some players would alter significantly.
Greg Chappell would currently be sixth on Australia’s list of all-time Test run scorers, instead of tenth. He would also have scored 29 Test centuries, rather than 24, placing him alongside Don Bradman at equal fourth on Australia’s all-time list (he is currently seventh). His Test average (53.86) would also improve slightly.
Dennis Lillee would join the ‘400 club’, the select group of players who have taken more than 400 Test wickets. Currently, only 13 players have done it in the official Test records.
Lillee would also be ninth on the all-time list if his 355 wicket tally rose to 422 by including WSC Supertest records, and three of the players that would still be above him are spinners (Murali, Shane Warne and Anil Kumble). He is currently equal 20th on the official all-time Test wicket-takers list.
Rod Marsh would have 407 wicket-keeping dismissals instead of 355, taking him past Ian Healy on Australia’s all-time list, but still trailing Adam Gilchrist’s 416.
For many years, I’ve thought that WSC records should be included in player’s Test records. But I can now see an argument for keeping them separate, as a standalone reflection of the toughness, quality and uniqueness of World Series Cricket.
Mitchell Hall
Roar Rookie
If you peeled off a century of that quality of attack. Rest of the World and The West Indies it should stand for something. It was TEST class cricket and it didn't have the stamp of approval because boards around the world were too lousy to fork out money for the top talent around at the time!
Ants32
Roar Rookie
Professor, It was the national "team" i.e. the cricket administrators who let the players down, not the other way around. And had been doing so for decades. It was just time that change happened. It's just sad that it took such a dramatic step for this change to come about. :/ WSC was commercially unviable, but only initially. By the end of the first season merchandising was going great guns. By the end of the second season it was making a (small) profit on the ground. Without factoring in merchandising and advertising revenue. The "establishment" caved because they finally saw what was happening. Their own "brand" had been reduced to "2nd class citizens". For the ACB and other interests to survive they had to welcome these players back into the fold with open arms. Or the whole Test/Shield structure would have fallen into dust, and become an anachronism. :/
Ants32
Roar Rookie
Yep. Have to agree with you Bob. This era, these players, this competition....The greatest of all time. :D I would like to think their stats should be included in official records, but it really does open a can of worms. I wouldn't, on the other hand, like to see the rebel tours to SA stats included. It really does open up a minefield. And that's without considering the position of those in power (who obviously just want to cling to it), that if these matches are recognized, it legitimizes any further "industrial action"-type breakaway comps. :/ It's well worth the discussion, though. Thank you for the article, John Coomer. :)
Pope Paul VII
Guest
I've always been curious as to why the D H Robins XI and International Wanderers tours of SA during the 1970s apparently occurred without controversy?
Sammy
Guest
You are correct! http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/714423.html
JohnB
Guest
Although over time it's not been unheard of for games to be given test status after the event - particularly early games in Sth Africa. There was an article in Cricinfo pointing out that several blokes who find themselves in the record books as test cricketers in fact died before the games they played in were recognised as tests. The 1946 game between Aust and NZ apparently wasn't recognised as a test when it was being played. Personally I think rebel SA tours are in a different category from WSC because of the apartheid ban element (and the touring teams weren't the strongest available) but there have been a variety of exceptions and special cases over the years regarding what amounts to a test match so even if you don't agree with that it wouldn't be impossible to treat the 2 differently.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Geez how pissed would you have been when you were told you were being sent to NZD, while the other half of the team got to spend a few months in the Caribbean...
JohnB
Guest
Twice at least. In SA and Aust in 1892 and in WI and NZ in 1929/30.
Perry Bridge
Guest
Depends upon how and why you are carving up test records to review -on Cricinfo he has all his Aust and SAf test stats bundled together, and his test debut is listed for Australia and his last test is for SAf. What they do provide is in the career review there is a sub grouping of his Aust stats (82--5) and his SAf states (92-94). 4 100s and 2 100s but overall he is a 6 centurys test player. So - it really only comes into it depending on how you're trying to view the stats of the player - but - there should be an overall stat. And for the WSC - those runs and wickets were probably the most competitive cricket ever played. Yes - the players were 'economic rebels' - but it's not as if they were banned from the 'establishment' as the South African tour rebels of the '80s were. (that would be a whole extra argument to have those stats counted!!!).
The Bush
Roar Guru
I'm almost certain that England has toured two places at once and called both sides the Test team. Admittedly this was probably before WWII, but still, I feel it has happened before.
mds1970
Roar Guru
There are precedents. In the early days of Test cricket, it was quite common for games to be arranged by private promoters. Whether it's possible for a country to be simultaneously playing two Test matches, as would often have happened if WSC Supertests are recognised as Test matches, is problematic - but there is in the current record an instance in the 1920s when England played two Tests simultaneously. But the cricket boards and the ICC are more powerful since then, and won't retrospectively recognise unsanctioned games.
The Magic Man
Roar Rookie
Stop over thinking it. Possibly the best standard of cricket in the toughest era. It should have been included in the official record many many years ago.
Peeeko
Guest
It was big bucks they chased, it was livelihood. The ACB and others were ripping them off and the players didn't abandon their countries, they abandoned a tyrannical organisation
Sammy
Guest
For a match to be granted official International Status both teams need to be recognized as the sole representative team of a certain Country or an ICC "rest of the word" team. A Country cannot have two official Cricket Teams simultaneously, so matches involving "rebel squads" can only ever be viewed as exhibition matches. Some WSC matches involving the West Indies might qualify for International Status, as the West Indies players were permitted to play both WSC and official International cricket. I believe that the West indies did not have two separate teams participating simultaneously. But any WSC match involving Australia can never be granted International Status because Australia had a separate team playing official International matches. An interesting tournament involving both "International" and "first class" matches was the 1994/95 ODI Series between Australia, Australia A, England and Zimbabwe. Any match involving Australia A was only granted "first class" status. The Australia A team included many future Australian stars like Damien Martyn, Justin Langer, Ricky Ponting, Greg Blewett, Matthew Hayden - plus the experienced Paul Reifell, Merv Hughes and Phil Emery. David Boon actually took a wicket for Australia against Australia A, so his wicket never counted as an "International wicket".
Warnie's Love Child
Guest
The Bush, I didn't mean leftovers as in test runs - I meant the players who didn't slot into the 2 main teams. My question came about because I actually thought of Kepler Wessels as an example, who has his stats separately for Australia and Sth Africa -- not simply as one total for all Test runs scored.
Bob
Guest
Soliloquy.
Bob
Guest
Yip, add the rebel Bok tours, now we're talking!
Brett McKay
Expert
And therein lies the dilemma John! It's all worth consideration, though, good of you to make us think about it...
John Coomer
Roar Guru
A real shame Tim, some absolute South African legends in that era.
JohnB
Guest
Not really relevant to your question, but the ROW team included the West Indians when playing Australia at least in the first year. You could argue that that added a lot of muddying of waters into the mix (players playing for 2 different teams in the one year) but it certainly led to some quite handy line-ups - Greenidge, both Richards, Lloyd, Knott, Roberts and Garner or Imran in the one team, with the numbers made up by no-names like Procter, Greig, Underwood and Daniel.